AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant, previously convicted of criminal sexual penetration, violated his probation by possessing three R-rated movies deemed sexually oriented or stimulating. This possession breached the terms of a Sex Offender Supervision Behavioral Contract he had agreed to, which prohibited such materials (paras 1, 4-6).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Angela J. Jewell, District Judge Pro Tempore: The Defendant's probation was revoked for possessing prohibited material, specifically three R-rated movies.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant had sufficient notice that possessing the movies violated his probation terms and that the district court had enough evidence without needing to review the movies in their entirety (paras 7-18).
• Defendant-Appellant (Robert Dinapoli): Contended he did not have sufficient notice that his possession of the movies would violate the terms of his probation. He also argued that the district court erred by not viewing the movies in full to assess their nature (paras 7, 11).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant had sufficient notice that possessing the movies would violate his probation terms.
• Whether the district court needed to view the movies in their entirety to properly assess their nature in relation to the probation violation (paras 7, 11, 31).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation of the Defendant's probation and remanded to the district court to modify its sentence to provide credit for time served on probation (paras 38-39).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge James J. Wechsler, with Judges Jonathan B. Sutin and M. Monica Zamora concurring, held that the Defendant had sufficient notice of the probation terms through the Sex Offender Supervision Behavioral Contract and a previous probation violation. The court determined that the contract's language and the circumstances of a prior violation provided clear notice that the possession of the movies was a breach of the probation terms. The court also found that the district court had sufficient evidence to revoke probation without needing to review the movies in their entirety, as the descriptions and selected scenes demonstrated their sexually oriented nature. The appellate court disagreed with the Defendant's arguments regarding notice, vagueness, and the necessity of viewing the movies in full, affirming the probation revocation and remanding for the adjustment of the sentence to include credit for time served on probation (paras 7-37).